MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220852325 · doi:10.3390/en15062209

Computational Modeling Approaches of Hydrothermal Carbonization: A Critical Review

2022· review· en· W4220852325 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell Ubene, Mohammad Heidari, Animesh Dutta

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercializationHydrothermal carbonizationProcess engineeringRaw materialProcess (computing)Computer scienceEnvironmental scienceBiochemical engineeringCarbonizationEngineeringBusinessMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) continues to gain recognition over other valorization techniques for organic and biomass residue in recent research. The hydrochar product of HTC can be effectively produced from various sustainable resources and has been shown to have impressive potential for a wide range of applications. As industries work to adapt the implementation of HTC over large processes, the need for reliable models that can be referred to for predictions and optimization studies are becoming imperative. Although much of the available research relating to HTC has worked on the modeling area, a large gap remains in developing advanced computational models that can better describe the complex mechanisms, heat transfer, and fluid dynamics that take place in the reactor of the process. This review aims to highlight the importance of expanding the research relating to computational modeling for HTC conversion of biomass. It identifies six research areas that are recommended to be further examined for contributing to necessary advancements that need to be made for large-scale and continuous HTC operations. The six areas that are identified for further investigation are variable feedstock compositions, heat of exothermic reactions, type of reactor and scale-up, consideration of pre-pressurization, consideration of the heat-up period, and porosity of feedstock. Addressing these areas in future HTC modeling efforts will greatly help with commercialization of this promising technology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207